Borderlands, Brokers and Peacebuilding in Sri Lanka and Nepal: War to Peace Transitions viewed from the margins

政治经济学对关于国家建设和冲突后重建的主流文献的批评，突出了其非历史的，功能主义的和技术官僚的取向（Cramer，2006; Migdal & Schlichte，2005;罗克斯伯勒，2012; Pugh et al，2008）。这种批评强调了国家形成/建设的历史分歧和有争议的轨迹，以及研究国家实际存在而不是作为理想类型的重要性。这一点的必然结果是需要通过联盟分析来分解国家，以理解胁迫和租金分配在塑造政治（失）秩序中的作用，以及支持正式国家结构和机构的非正式网络，经纪人和权力关系的至关重要性（North et al 2012，De Waal 2009，Mac Ginty 2010）。然而，尽管这些政治经济学见解很重要，但它们很少明确涉及与权力的领土化有关的问题，或者稀缺性的空间维度，丰富性和依赖性（Le Billon，2012）。隐含的空间假设是，战后国家建设和发展涉及在中心建立或重建机构，然后将权力向外扩散或辐射到国家的边缘。这项研究挑战了这种叙述，借鉴了政治地理学，政治生态学和边界研究的见解，这些研究考察了领土，空间，规模，资源和政治进程之间的相互作用（Agnew，2008; Kauop等人，2008; Korf等人，2009; Nugent，2003; Paasi，2011; Watts，2004）。该研究重点关注冲突和战后国家建设的具体历史、连接中心和边缘的网络、经纪人和机构，以及战争向和平过渡的不断变化的地理位置。从这个角度来看，边缘不仅反映了中心的权力关系，而且实际上可能是这些权力关系的组成部分（Scott，2009; Goodhand，2008，2013）。这项研究的目的是打开国家以下各级治理的黑箱，研究不同类型的外围和不同的中介关系如何界定国家一级的体制安排和政治进程。这种差距可能是决定如何在战后建立和平的关键领域。该研究包括一个结构化的，重点比较的空间动态的战争和平过渡在边境地区/边境地区的两个受冲突影响的国家在南亚-斯里兰卡和尼泊尔。比较两种不同类型的边缘地带-如尼泊尔的跨越国际边界的边境地带和斯里兰卡的位于岛国边缘的内部边界-将特别有助于揭示冲突、经纪和战后巩固的不同动态。这些案件也代表了两种截然不同的战后解决办法：斯里兰卡的战争以军事胜利结束，导致维克托的和平;尼泊尔的战争以谈判解决结束，随后是中部和边境地区之间的长期讨价还价。这些对比鲜明的特点将有助于我们发展不同的背景特征如何塑造边境和经纪人在战后过渡中的作用的理解，并扩大这些研究结果的适用性，以更广泛的情况下，在南亚和超越。这项研究将有三个方面（国家绘图研究，地区研究和方案/经纪人研究），这将使我们能够捕捉不同层次的分析，并探索连接结构，机构和代理人的联系和途径。为了阐明复杂的国际/国家/地方界面，研究部署了一个多站点的研究设计，混合的方法，包括访谈，调查，生活史和历史知情的上下文分析。

Political economy critiques of the mainstream literature on statebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction, highlight its ahistorical, functionalist and technocratic orientation (Cramer, 2006; Migdal & Schlichte, 2005; Roxborough, 2012; Pugh et al, 2008). This critique emphasises the historically-divergent and contested trajectories of state formation/building, and the importance of studying the state as it actually exists rather than as an ideal type. The corollary to this is the need to disaggregate the state through coalitional analysis, to appreciate the role that coercion and the distribution of rents play in shaping political (dis)order and the critical importance of informal networks, brokers and power relations that underpin formal state structures and institutions (North et al 2012, De Waal 2009, Mac Ginty 2010). However, important though these political economy insights are, they rarely deal explicitly with questions related to the territorialisation of power, or the spatial dimensions of scarcity, abundance and dependence (Le Billon, 2012). The implicit spatial assumption is that post-war statebuilding and development involves the creation or rebuilding of institutions at the centre, followed by the diffusion or radiation of power outwards to the margins of the state. This research challenges this narrative, drawing upon insights from political geography, political ecology and border studies which examine the interactions between territory, space, scales, resources and political processes (Agnew, 2008; Jessop et al, 2008; Korf et al, 2009; Nugent, 2003; Paasi, 2011; Watts, 2004). The research focuses on the specific histories of conflict and post-war statebuilding, the networks, brokers and institutions which link centre and periphery, and the evolving geographies of war to peace transitions. From this perspective, the margins are not merely reflective of power relations at the centre, but may actually be constitutive of those power relations (Scott, 2009; Goodhand, 2008, 2013). The research aims to open up the black box of subnational governance and study how different kinds of peripheries and differing brokering relationships may define institutional arrangements and political processes at the national level. The margins may be crucial arenas which determine how peace is built in the aftermath of war. The research consists of a structured, focused comparison of the spatial dynamics of war to peace transitions in the borderlands/frontier regions of two conflict-affected states in South Asia - Sri Lanka and Nepal. The comparison between two different types of peripheries - borderlands, which span an international border as in the case of Nepal, and internal frontiers which lie on the margins of an island state as in Sri Lanka - will be particularly fruitful in revealing differing dynamics of conflict, brokerage and post-war consolidation. These cases also represent two contrasting post-war settlements: while Sri Lanka's war ended with a military victory leading to a victor's peace; Nepal's war concluded with a negotiated settlement and a subsequent period of protracted bargaining between the centre and borderland regions. These contrasting characteristics will help us to develop an understanding of how different contextual features shape the role of borderlands and brokers in post-war transitions, and broaden the applicability of these findings to a wider set of cases in South Asia and beyond. The research will have three strands (national mapping study, district-based studies, and programme/broker studies), which will allow us to capture different levels of analysis and explore the connections and pathways linking structures, institutions and agents. In order to shed light on the complex international/national/local interface, the research deploys a multi-sited research design that mixes methods, including interviews, surveys, life histories and historically-informed contextual analysis.